Sestak Job Offer Likely Benign, But Questions Remain for White House

May 28, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (21)

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

About that job that was offered to Rep. Joe Sestak as an inducement to not challenge Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary? Turns out it was all a misunderstanding, or something close to it. [See who supports Sestak.]

On Friday the White House counsel’s office revealed that, working through former President Bill Clinton, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel had reached out and made a vague offer of an appointment to some kind of unpaid position on a presidential advisory board in exchange for Sestak agreeing not to take on Specter, whom he eventually beat.

Not being an attorney or legal scholar, it seems that the offer--while it may still violate the letter of the law concerning such things--almost certainly does not violate its spirit. As some have maintained right from the start, the offer made to Sestak probably does not rise to the level of criminal activity so much as it represents the kind of political horse trading that is common in Washington, where spouses, lovers, and longtime associates of elected officials, both prominent and not-so-prominent, often turn up in government jobs or serving on the kinds of advisory boards Sestak was offered. 

It continues to be something of a puzzle, through, as to why it took 10 weeks to sort out the whole business. At any time since he first let word of the offer slip Sestak could have made a clean breast of the whole thing, as could anyone who was involved in the transaction. Instead they dodged the issue, with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs playing coy with the press every time a question was raised.

Having apparently dispensed with the issue of whether or not a crime was committed (and White House Counsel Robert Bauer’s explanation of events seems to suggest there wasn’t) there is still the matter of the judgment of the people involved.

Was Sestak deliberately trying to make himself look more important by letting it slip that he had been offered a job in exchange for getting out of the primary? Was he unable to acknowledge that he had made a mistake? And why did it take the White House so long to come clean about what actually had occurred, especially since they came into office promising to be the most transparent administration in U.S. history?

There are some, like California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who are unlikely to let go of the issue until all these questions are answered.

Shortly after the White House’s Bauer made his findings public Issa said in a statement that he is “concerned that in the rush to put together this report, the White House has done everything but explain its own actions and has instead worked to craft a story behind closed doors and coordinate with those involved.”

As the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Issa wants both Clinton and Sestak to “answer questions about what the White House has released today.”

He has a point.

Tags:
Rahm Emanuel,
Arlen Specter,
Robert Gibbs,
Joe Sestak,
2010 Congressional elections,
Darrell Issa,
Congress,
Bill Clinton,
Barack Obama,
White House

Reader Comments Read all comments (21)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

интеретсный блог почему только так мало читателей на нём

kikus of AL 7:40PM June 12, 2010

Sestak couldn't have accepted the job offer and stayed in the Congress... this story is more than a little fishy. There must be more but the 'transparency' must only be when convenient.

Bob of MD 4:19PM June 02, 2010

How long must we as the people of these United States endure this apparant "politically correct" BS of turning a blind eye to everything that is going on in this Administration and Legislative Branch of OUR Government????

This little "offer" is paltry in comparison to the back-room dealings of Congress these dayz except that it actually could be a violation of clear LAW that exist in this land...sort of like immigration "laws" that seem completely ignored. you know... those "misguided" laws if a State tries to ENFORCE them.

Those laws that REQUIRED Federal Inspections of Oil Rigs???

It is all becoming a SICK JOKE as OUR Nation swirls down the toilet.

Chris Petty of GA 11:48PM May 31, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement